key: cord-0008288-v1lffk23
authors: Drinka, Paul J.
title: What Has SARS Taught Us About Infection Control in Nursing Homes?
date: 2005-02-23
journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc
DOI: 10.1016/s1525-8610(04)70121-8
sha: 49c2364cac356d858c7a8e36c5741964e778ff6a
doc_id: 8288
cord_uid: v1lffk23

nan

To the Editor:

Initially, my concerns were about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for octogenarians; the median between life expectancy (in the United States) and lifespan (in the United States), 75-85 years. CPR has proven useless in this age group.

Informed consent for octogenarians requesting CPR does not negate the basics of medicine. It affirms our current legal standard of providing informed consent for invasive procedures.

Defaulting to do-not-resuscitate status simply recognizes a natural end-of-life phenomenon and is not in opposition to the three Abrahamic monotheistic religions, which, according to the reference article of Dr. Iraqi, supports a respect for the dying process when it is clearly imminent and irreversible! Attending to the physical distress of an octogenarian is a physician's duty-comfort care. Trying to revive an octogenarian after cardiopulmonary arrest is simply paying homage to the false idol of medical technology, which is unrealistically promoted by the media.

The Hippocratic oath is a pledge that we physicians will not use our knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. The laws of humanity have always respected the natural course of life and inevitable death, hopefully without suffering.

I agree with Dr. Iraqi's recommendation to keep ourselves engaged in discussion with our octogenarian patients and kin. I am very skeptical when an octogenarian is admitted to the nursing home as a "full code." These new residents and families are given further information and informed consent with the same refusal rate as Dr. Iraqi has experienced.

"Do unto others. . .," the Golden Rule, is also preached by the monotheistic religions. I do not know any physicians who would want their octogenarian parents or their octogenarian selves to be resuscitated after cardiopulmonary arrest. We need to preach what we practice. I 

To the Editor: Following submission of my editorial, "What Has SARS Taught Us About Infection Control in Nursing Homes?," 1 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has made new recommendations based on what they learned during the worldwide SARS outbreak. The CDC has recommended a "Respiratory Hygiene/Cough Etiquette Strategy for Healthcare Facilities," including specific "Recommendations for Long-Term Care Facilities." 2 My editorial mentions the lack of sensitive, real-time diagnostic tests to determine which organism is responsible for cough and fever in a resident with an acute change in status. Even the rapid influenza tests have problems with sensitivity. The editorial also mentions that familiar respiratory viruses such as influenza, parainfluenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), especially complicated by pneumonia, have mortality rates in nursing home residents greater than the 9% figure cited for SARS cases in the community. Because clinicians seldom know the precise etiology of an infectious respiratory syndrome, the CDC now recommends universal respiratory hygiene for all patients who present with an infectious respiratory syndrome, especially during periods of increased respiratory activity in the community (ie, evidence of ongoing transmission). The approach includes droplet secretion precautions. Given the fact that influenza, SARS-CoV, parainfluenza, and RSV are all transmissible and potentially lethal in nursing home residents, and could be clinically indistinguishable, it seems prudent to initially approach all residents with symptoms of acute respiratory infection with droplet secretion precautions modified to the reality of your facility. [3] [4] [5] Paul J. Drinka 

To the Editor:

The comparative study by Aigner et al. 1 raises interesting issues regarding nurse practitioner/physician collaborative models of care for nursing facility residents. Previous authors have documented differences in outcomes when advanced practice nurses (APNs) and physicians work as a team to enhance nursing services and provide medical care. [2] [3] [4] A collegial review of the model is offered here in an effort to further explain the results.

We believe that comprehensive, consistent care is critical for frail institutionalized older adults who have complex medical, psychosocial, and behavioral issues. Understanding the interaction between these factors requires significant training in geriatric syndromes, as well as an understanding of the nursing process and systems unique to long-term care. The APNs in this study were placed on a rotating basis, which could have inhibited the opportunity to build consistent, stable relationships with patients, families, or staff. By rotating the APNs every 3 months, comprehensive primary care could have been compromised.

In addition, the APNs in this study were not geriatric nurse practitioners (GNPs). The APNs most likely had received training in the management of diseases of adulthood, but may have had less education and training than GNPs in the evaluation and management of geriatric syndromes such as falls, incontinence, geriatric depression, dementia behaviors, polypharmacy, involuntary weight loss, and pressure ulcers. Many GNP educational programs include content on nursing facility culture and processes, which can affect patient care. Geriatric nurse practitioners have had a positive impact on individual patients with attention to the geriatric syndromes, 6 and geriatric clinical nurse specialists have been adept at influencing the system of care delivery. 7 It appears the model in the study was primarily a physician substitution model with less attention to augmenting nursing services.

The APNs provided services common in a fee-for-service environment, including acute visits, mandated progress visits, and annual comprehensive examinations. Progress visits were to be made every 60 days, alternating with the physician. This goal was not met because residents were seen only 4.6 times per year for progress visits when six would have been expected. The APNs managed approximately 14 paged or voicemail messages annually per patient but made only three acute visits per patient per year as a team. The APNs could have missed opportunities to intervene early in acute illness and prevent emergency department visits or hospitalizations. The American Medical Directors' Association (AMDA) has suggested one visit per month could be appropriate for a person who requires nursing care around the clock and one visit a week for persons receiving skilled nursing facility (SNF) services under Medicare part A. 5 The physician-only arm consisted of physicians who would continue to follow their own patients as they entered nursing facilities in the community. Thus, patients were followed by a provider who presumably knew them and their families very well. The patients in this study were all in the same eight nursing facilities. Given the mix of the team-patients and physician-only patients in the same facilities, this leaves open the possibility that any benefit from the APN presence was also seen with the physicianonly group, resulting in a halo effect. The same nurses and

Preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Revisiting Hippocrates: Does an oath really matter

Ethical issues in end-of-life geriatric care: The approach of three monotheistic religions-Judaism, Catholicism and Islam

Editorial: What has SARS taught us about infection control in nursing homes?

Public Health Guidance for Community-Level Preparedness and Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-version 2

Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee for CDC. 1996 guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals

Non-influenza respiratory viruses may overlap and obscure influenza activity

Mortality following isolation of various respiratory viruses in nursing home residents